THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
Go to Shellow Collection Table of Contents

Evidence: Voice Identification

    1.    Voice Identification: Factors To Consider

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

1.    Voice Identification: Factors To Consider

ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    It is __________’s (name of defendant) position that __________ (name of law enforcement officer) did not have a sufficient basis upon which to form an opinion that it was mostly __________’s (name of defendant) voice that participated in the recorded conversation with __________ (name of third party) on __________ (date).

    In weighing the evidence in support of __________’s (name of defendant) position you may consider the following:

    1.  The number of times __________ (name of law enforcement officer) heard the voice of __________ (name of defendant).

    2.  The circumstances in which __________ (name of law enforcement officer) heard the voice of __________ (name of defendant).

    3.  The quality of the tape recording (Exhibit 3C) of the conversation which occurred on __________ (date).   

FRE 901(a); United States v. Larkins, 83 F.3d 162, 167 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Howard, 80 F.3d 1194, 1200 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Saulter, 60 F.3d 270, 276 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Robinson, 956 F.2d 1388, 1395 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1020 (1992); United States v. Blakey, 607 F.2d 779, 787-88 & n.14 (7th Cir. 1979).

[The attention of the Court is further invited to 250 reported 7th Cir. opinions which support the duty of the Court to instruct on a defendant's theory of defense; representative opinions follow.]

United States v. Mercado, Case No. 93-CR-116 (E.D. Wis. 1994); United States v. Toney, 27 F.3d 1245 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Walker, 25 F.3d 540, 547 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Knapp, 25 F.3d 451, 456 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Roberts, 22 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Scott, 19 F.3d 1238, 1245 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Boykins, 9 F.3d 1278, 1285 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Douglas, 818 F.2d 1317, 1320 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 841 (1989); United States v. Brown, 785 F.2d 587, 590 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Lehman, 463 F.2d 93, 104 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 967 (1972); United States v. Vole, 435 F.2d 774, 776-77 (7th Cir. 1970). United States v. Douglas, 818 F.2d 1317, 1322 (7th Cir. 1987) ["It is essential for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's requirement that the jury be able to evaluate...the adequacy of [the defendants'] theory of defense,"] quoted in United States v. Minneman, 143 F.3d 274, 281 (7th Cir. 1998)].

See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence Generally.

See generally NCJIC 32.1 [Voice Identification].